What kind of judicial system was there during olden days?Answer the given question.
Answers
Answered by
5
An ancient system
When you see a judge or magistrate sitting in court, you are actually looking at the result of 1,000 years of legal evolution.
It’s doubtful that anyone asked to design a justice system would choose to copy the English and Welsh model. It’s contradictory in places, and rather confusing. However, the judiciary is still changing and evolving to meet the needs of our society, and despite its oddities it is widely regarded as one of the best and most independent in the world.
A real ordeal
Justice for the Anglo-Saxons and even after the Norman invasion of 1066 was a combination of local and royal government. Local courts were presided over by a lord or one of his stewards. The King’s court – the Curia Regis – was, initially at least, presided over by the King himself.
Today, going on trial in an English and Welsh court is not exactly a comfortable experience. But it’s far better than trial by ordeal, used until almost the end of the 12th century to determine guilt or innocence in criminal cases.
Under this system, the accused would be forced to pick up a red hot bar of iron, pluck a stone out of a cauldron of boiling water, or something equally painful and dangerous.
If their hand had begun to heal after three days they were considered to have God on their side, thus proving their innocence. The number of ‘not guilty’ verdicts recorded by this system is not known.
Another, extremely popular ‘ordeal’ involved water; the accused would be tied up and thrown into a lake or other body of water. If innocent, he or she would sink.
There were two problems with this method, which was often used to try suspected witches: the accused was tied right thumb to left toe, left thumb to right toe, which made it almost impossible to sink; and opinion is divided as to whether those who did sink were fished out afterwards.
William II (1087-1100) eventually banned trial by ordeal – reportedly because 50 men accused of killing his deer had passed the test – and it was condemned by the Church in 1216.
Fighting for freedom?
Criminal and civil disputes could also be decided by trial by combat, with a win held to prove either innocence or the right to whatever property was being disputed. Either side could employ their own champions, so the system wasn’t perhaps as fair as it might be.
Trial by combat gradually fell into disuse for civil cases, although it wasn’t until someone involved in a dispute in 1818 tried to insist on it that it was realised this was still, technically, an option. Trial by combat was quickly banned, forcing litigants to rely on more conventional routes.
The earliest judges
During this period judges gradually gained independence from the monarch and the government. The very first judges, back in the 12th century, were court officials who had particular experience in advising the King on the settlement of disputes. From that group evolved the justices in eyre, who possessed a mixed administrative and judicial jurisdiction.
The justices in eyre were not, to put it mildly, popular. In fact, they came to be regarded as instruments of oppression.
The seeds of the modern justice system were sown by Henry II (1154-1189), who established a jury of 12 local knights to settle disputes over the ownership of land. When Henry came to the throne, there were just 18 judges in the country – compared to more than 40,000 today.
In 1178, Henry II first chose five members of his personal household – two clergy and three lay – “to hear all the complaints of the realm and to do right”.
This, supervised by the King and “wise men” of the realm, was the origin of the Court of Common Pleas.
Eventually, a new permanent court, the Court of the King’s Bench, evolved, and judicial proceedings before the King came to be seen as separate from proceedings before the King’s Council.
When you see a judge or magistrate sitting in court, you are actually looking at the result of 1,000 years of legal evolution.
It’s doubtful that anyone asked to design a justice system would choose to copy the English and Welsh model. It’s contradictory in places, and rather confusing. However, the judiciary is still changing and evolving to meet the needs of our society, and despite its oddities it is widely regarded as one of the best and most independent in the world.
A real ordeal
Justice for the Anglo-Saxons and even after the Norman invasion of 1066 was a combination of local and royal government. Local courts were presided over by a lord or one of his stewards. The King’s court – the Curia Regis – was, initially at least, presided over by the King himself.
Today, going on trial in an English and Welsh court is not exactly a comfortable experience. But it’s far better than trial by ordeal, used until almost the end of the 12th century to determine guilt or innocence in criminal cases.
Under this system, the accused would be forced to pick up a red hot bar of iron, pluck a stone out of a cauldron of boiling water, or something equally painful and dangerous.
If their hand had begun to heal after three days they were considered to have God on their side, thus proving their innocence. The number of ‘not guilty’ verdicts recorded by this system is not known.
Another, extremely popular ‘ordeal’ involved water; the accused would be tied up and thrown into a lake or other body of water. If innocent, he or she would sink.
There were two problems with this method, which was often used to try suspected witches: the accused was tied right thumb to left toe, left thumb to right toe, which made it almost impossible to sink; and opinion is divided as to whether those who did sink were fished out afterwards.
William II (1087-1100) eventually banned trial by ordeal – reportedly because 50 men accused of killing his deer had passed the test – and it was condemned by the Church in 1216.
Fighting for freedom?
Criminal and civil disputes could also be decided by trial by combat, with a win held to prove either innocence or the right to whatever property was being disputed. Either side could employ their own champions, so the system wasn’t perhaps as fair as it might be.
Trial by combat gradually fell into disuse for civil cases, although it wasn’t until someone involved in a dispute in 1818 tried to insist on it that it was realised this was still, technically, an option. Trial by combat was quickly banned, forcing litigants to rely on more conventional routes.
The earliest judges
During this period judges gradually gained independence from the monarch and the government. The very first judges, back in the 12th century, were court officials who had particular experience in advising the King on the settlement of disputes. From that group evolved the justices in eyre, who possessed a mixed administrative and judicial jurisdiction.
The justices in eyre were not, to put it mildly, popular. In fact, they came to be regarded as instruments of oppression.
The seeds of the modern justice system were sown by Henry II (1154-1189), who established a jury of 12 local knights to settle disputes over the ownership of land. When Henry came to the throne, there were just 18 judges in the country – compared to more than 40,000 today.
In 1178, Henry II first chose five members of his personal household – two clergy and three lay – “to hear all the complaints of the realm and to do right”.
This, supervised by the King and “wise men” of the realm, was the origin of the Court of Common Pleas.
Eventually, a new permanent court, the Court of the King’s Bench, evolved, and judicial proceedings before the King came to be seen as separate from proceedings before the King’s Council.
Answered by
12
here is ur answer mate......
The present judicial system of India was not a sudden creation. It has been
evolved as the result of slow and gradual process and bears the imprint of the
different period of Indian history. The period which however, have made the
greatest impact on the existing system are those nearest to the present times and it
is not surprising that the period preceding and following the down of
independence, more particularly that one after the coming into force of the
constitution have been the greatest molding factors.
Administration of justice is one of the most essential functions of the state.
1.If men were gods and angels, no law courts would perhaps be necessary though
even then the skeptics might refer to the quarrels among gods, particularly in the
context of goddesses. As it is, we find that though man may be a little lower than
the angels, be has not yet shed off the brute. Not far beneath within the man, there
lurks the brute and the brute is apt to break loose on occasions, To curb and
control that brute and to prevent degeneration of society into a state of tooth and
claw, we need the rule of law. We also need the rule of law for punishing all
deviations and lapses from the code of conduct and standard of behavior which the
community speaking through its representatives has prescribed as the law of the
land. Being human, disputes are bound to arise amongst us. For the settlement of
those disputes, we need guidelines in the form of laws and forums to redress thewrongs in the form of courts. Laws and courts have always gone together. There is
a close nexus between them; neither court can exist without the laws or laws
without the courts.
The judicial system deals with the administration of the laws through the
agency of the courts. The system provides the machinery for the resolving of the
disputes on account of which the aggrieved. Party approaches the courts. Nothing
rankles in human heart more than a brooding sense of injustice. No society can
allow a situation to grow where the impression prevails of there being no redress
for grievances.
A State consists of three organs, the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary. The judiciary, it has been said, is the weakest of the three organs. It has
neither the power of the purse nor the power of the sword, neither money nor
patronage, not even the physical force to enforce its decisions. Despite that, the
courts have by and large enjoyed high prestige amongst and commanded respect
of the people. This is so because of the moral authority of the courts and the
confidence the people have in the role of the courts to do justice between the rich
and the poor, the mighty and the weak, the state and the citizen, without fear or
favor......
hope this helps u mate.....
plz mark me as brainlist plz plz plz plz
The present judicial system of India was not a sudden creation. It has been
evolved as the result of slow and gradual process and bears the imprint of the
different period of Indian history. The period which however, have made the
greatest impact on the existing system are those nearest to the present times and it
is not surprising that the period preceding and following the down of
independence, more particularly that one after the coming into force of the
constitution have been the greatest molding factors.
Administration of justice is one of the most essential functions of the state.
1.If men were gods and angels, no law courts would perhaps be necessary though
even then the skeptics might refer to the quarrels among gods, particularly in the
context of goddesses. As it is, we find that though man may be a little lower than
the angels, be has not yet shed off the brute. Not far beneath within the man, there
lurks the brute and the brute is apt to break loose on occasions, To curb and
control that brute and to prevent degeneration of society into a state of tooth and
claw, we need the rule of law. We also need the rule of law for punishing all
deviations and lapses from the code of conduct and standard of behavior which the
community speaking through its representatives has prescribed as the law of the
land. Being human, disputes are bound to arise amongst us. For the settlement of
those disputes, we need guidelines in the form of laws and forums to redress thewrongs in the form of courts. Laws and courts have always gone together. There is
a close nexus between them; neither court can exist without the laws or laws
without the courts.
The judicial system deals with the administration of the laws through the
agency of the courts. The system provides the machinery for the resolving of the
disputes on account of which the aggrieved. Party approaches the courts. Nothing
rankles in human heart more than a brooding sense of injustice. No society can
allow a situation to grow where the impression prevails of there being no redress
for grievances.
A State consists of three organs, the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary. The judiciary, it has been said, is the weakest of the three organs. It has
neither the power of the purse nor the power of the sword, neither money nor
patronage, not even the physical force to enforce its decisions. Despite that, the
courts have by and large enjoyed high prestige amongst and commanded respect
of the people. This is so because of the moral authority of the courts and the
confidence the people have in the role of the courts to do justice between the rich
and the poor, the mighty and the weak, the state and the citizen, without fear or
favor......
hope this helps u mate.....
plz mark me as brainlist plz plz plz plz
Similar questions